Still homophobic in nature. It's just more passive-aggressive in nature, which makes me less prone to want to bash the speaker's skull in for their idiocy the way I do blatant homophobes, but it's still wrong.

I forget the term, something ex nihilo? Where you extend the opponent's argument to an idiotic scale beyond the context... like... "I think taxation should be reduced to increase corporate growth and create more jobs" is turned into "TAXES ARE FOR COMMUNISTS"

Something like that... I need to brush up on debate lingo... Though I have to ask, are you against civil union or holy union or just using the word marriage to describe civil union?

I'd not be surprised if they're users too.
And it might just be something about economic theories that brings out all the best funnyjunk has to offer. In which case, how the hell did I end up in this mix?

Well that's a good thing for you, because out of about 50 notifications, you're the only one that's not a name list. Damn those things, at least you have something good coming from this name-in-a-post **** .

Or just choose not to have the notifications in my case. I hardly talk with anyone on here, just lurking so when out of nowhere OH YOUR NAME'S ON SOME DOUCHE WHO DELETED HIS ACCOUNT'S LIST, it gets to be a bit annoying. However, a good bit with a civilised person like yourself, I don't mind every once in a while. Thanks for this!

I'm using it as in civil union between two parties. It seems today that so many people turn a simple answer to a question about beliefs stemming from religion (the Chick-fil-a CEO) and turning it into a nationwide scandal, especially when there are a lot of people who would give the same answer. I personally don't believe in gay marriage, but I'm not gonna run around crashing their wedding if it's legal. I also think everyone has the right to be happy about who they are.

I mean a civil union has nothing to do with God, it's just about having "spouse" on your identification and being able to be considered next of kin at important junctures.

It's a little dicier when people try to validate a homosexual holy union since that really is kinda spitting in the face of religion...

Chik-fil-a CEO has every right to be a homophobe and the people of that city have every right not to eat at his store. The Mayor of Boston had no place condemning the CEO for having a personal view that was not in line with the general population. This is America, the land of the free. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and expression and so long as that CEO was not infringing on the rights of the homosexual community the local government had no right to get involved in his personal affairs.

Exactly! Nobody is forcing the gay people to go eat there, and nobody is saying gay people can't go there and enjoy a sandwich. Just because he has a personal, religious view doesn't make him any sort of evil guy hell bent on destroying homosexuality.

Not saying I'm one of those "OMG CHICKFILA SHOULD DIE" people but i want to point out that they aren't just saying they dislike gay people. The CEO takes a good bit of the profit the company makes and uses it to fund anti gay things. So by buying a sandwich there you are indirectly funding homophobia